Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 24 Aug 2012 (Friday) 13:43
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

If I have the 70-200 MKII is the 135L worth it?

 
iLynx
Member
Avatar
119 posts
Joined Jun 2011
Location: Surprise, AZ
     
Aug 24, 2012 13:43 |  #1

Basically the title says it all. If I have a 70-200 F/2.8 IS II is the 135L worth purchasing? Any opinions from people who have or had both. I shoot weddings, portraits, and landscapes.


5D2 // 7D // 50 1.4 // 85 1.8 // 135 L // 100mm Macro // 17-40 L //24-105 L // 70-200 2.8 IS II L // Canon 430 EX II // Kenko Extension Tubes
Website (external link): Facebook (external link): Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Sir_Loin
Senior Member
Avatar
548 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 104
Joined Oct 2010
Location: Leicestershire UK
     
Aug 24, 2012 14:18 |  #2

I personally would say no, it's not worth getting the 135L when you have the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS Mk II.

I had the 135 and sold it after getting the the zoom as it was just turning in to a paperweight as it hardly ever came out of my bag. I have no regrets. At comparable apertures I could see no difference in image quality or sharpness. OK, you get that f/2.0 aperture, but will you use it at that aperture all the time? Is it worth the expense and extra weight in your bag for one stop? I didn't think so, however, others will have a different opinion.


EOS 1D4, 5D3, EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, EF 14mm f/2.8L II, EF 24mm f/1.4L II, EF 50mm f/1.8 STM, EF 85mm f/1.2L II, EF 100mm Macro f/2.8L IS, EF 300mm f/4.0L IS * FL-F 300mm f/5.6 FLUORITE, FD 55mm f/1.2 ASPHERICAL, FD 50mm f/1.2L, FD 300mm f/2.8L, FD 50-300mm f/4.5L, EOS M5, M3, EF-M 11-22mm f/4.0-5.6 IS, EF-M 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, EF-M 55-200mm f/4.5-6.3 IS, EF-M 22mm f/2.0, EF-M 28mm f/3.5 Macro IS

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sebr
Goldmember
Avatar
4,628 posts
Likes: 9
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Sweden/France
     
Aug 24, 2012 14:29 |  #3

I have both but I have not used the 135L much since getting the 70-200L. I must however say that both are awesome. Looking at your current line up, there are some other lenses I would get first. 35L, 85L, 17-40L...


Sebastien
5D mkIII ; 17-40L ; 24-105L ; 70-200L II ; 70-300L ; 35L ; Σ85/1.4 ; 135L ; 100macro ; Kenko 1.4x ; 2x mkIII ; 580EXII
M5 ; M1 ; 11-22 ; 18-150 ; 22/2.0 ; EF adapter; Manfrotto LED
Benron Tripod; ThinkTank, Lowepro and Crumpler bags; Fjällräven backpack

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
iLynx
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
119 posts
Joined Jun 2011
Location: Surprise, AZ
     
Aug 24, 2012 15:06 |  #4

sebr wrote in post #14901868 (external link)
I have both but I have not used the 135L much since getting the 70-200L. I must however say that both are awesome. Looking at your current line up, there are some other lenses I would get first. 35L, 85L, 17-40L...

I am actually picking up a 17-40 lens in the next few days :) I was torn between the 16-35 II or 17-40 but I would strictly use this for landscapes so for me the 2.8 would be pointless and a waste of 800-900 bucks lol.


5D2 // 7D // 50 1.4 // 85 1.8 // 135 L // 100mm Macro // 17-40 L //24-105 L // 70-200 2.8 IS II L // Canon 430 EX II // Kenko Extension Tubes
Website (external link): Facebook (external link): Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
penduboy
Senior Member
308 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Feb 2012
     
Aug 24, 2012 15:21 |  #5

Sir_Loin wrote in post #14901829 (external link)
I personally would say no, it's not worth getting the 135L when you have the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS Mk II.

I had the 135 and sold it after getting the the zoom as it was just turning in to a paperweight as it hardly ever came out of my bag. I have no regrets. At comparable apertures I could see no difference in image quality or sharpness. OK, you get that f/2.0 aperture, but will you use it at that aperture all the time? Is it worth the expense and extra weight in your bag for one stop? I didn't think so, however, others will have a different opinion.

Thanks for your comment...I have the same question in another thread but looks like your comment answered my question...on the other note how you like your 1.4x on 70-200. I am planning to buy 2.0x II but people are not happy with 2x


Pendu

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Sir_Loin
Senior Member
Avatar
548 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 104
Joined Oct 2010
Location: Leicestershire UK
     
Aug 24, 2012 15:33 |  #6

penduboy wrote in post #14902085 (external link)
Thanks for your comment...I have the same question in another thread but looks like your comment answered my question...on the other note how you like your 1.4x on 70-200. I am planning to buy 2.0x II but people are not happy with 2x

The 1.4x is great on the 70-200. The edges suffer slightly, but the centre is excellent and you only notice when you pixel peep anyway.


EOS 1D4, 5D3, EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, EF 14mm f/2.8L II, EF 24mm f/1.4L II, EF 50mm f/1.8 STM, EF 85mm f/1.2L II, EF 100mm Macro f/2.8L IS, EF 300mm f/4.0L IS * FL-F 300mm f/5.6 FLUORITE, FD 55mm f/1.2 ASPHERICAL, FD 50mm f/1.2L, FD 300mm f/2.8L, FD 50-300mm f/4.5L, EOS M5, M3, EF-M 11-22mm f/4.0-5.6 IS, EF-M 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, EF-M 55-200mm f/4.5-6.3 IS, EF-M 22mm f/2.0, EF-M 28mm f/3.5 Macro IS

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Perfect_10
Goldmember
Avatar
1,998 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Aug 2004
Location: An Ex Brit living in Alberta, Canada
     
Aug 24, 2012 16:18 |  #7

penduboy wrote in post #14902085 (external link)
Thanks for your comment...I have the same question in another thread but looks like your comment answered my question...on the other note how you like your 1.4x on 70-200. I am planning to buy 2.0x II but people are not happy with 2x

I'm happy with both my 1.4x II and my 2x III when used with my 70-200 2.8 IS II.
The shots taken using the 2x III are comparable with any shot with my 100-400, even @ 400 .. (except in the 100-140 range ;) )


My Gear List  :p

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
penduboy
Senior Member
308 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Feb 2012
     
Aug 24, 2012 16:33 |  #8

Perfect_10 wrote in post #14902262 (external link)
I'm happy with both my 1.4x II and my 2x III when used with my 70-200 2.8 IS II.
The shots taken using the 2x III are comparable with any shot with my 100-400, even @ 400 .. (except in the 100-140 range ;) )

Do u have any experience with 2x II as I can't afford ver 3 at this moment.


Pendu

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Perfect_10
Goldmember
Avatar
1,998 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Aug 2004
Location: An Ex Brit living in Alberta, Canada
     
Aug 24, 2012 16:45 |  #9

penduboy wrote in post #14902319 (external link)
Do u have any experience with 2x II as I can't afford ver 3 at this moment.

Only in the 1.4 version (which I have and am really please with).
On the 2x .. it was a no brainer as the price difference was only $55, new.


My Gear List  :p

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TSchrief
Goldmember
Avatar
2,099 posts
Joined Aug 2012
Location: Bourbon, Indiana
     
Aug 26, 2012 07:17 |  #10
bannedPermanent ban

I sold my 135L and 200 2.8L so I could afford a Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS HSM. It was the right choice for me.


Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
robert61
Member
236 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jan 2010
     
Aug 26, 2012 07:50 |  #11

I have both. The 70-200 2.8L IS mk ii is a spectacular lens. However, the 135L f2.0L wide open has a wonderful look that the 70-200 can't achieve. If you're going for subject isolation through narrow depth of field, the 135L can't be beat, and it is one of the reaons people shoot Canon. So, yes, it is worthwhile to own both.


Canon gear, Einstein lights, modifiers

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
billppw350z
Member
Avatar
210 posts
Joined Apr 2006
Location: Carson City
     
Aug 26, 2012 09:12 |  #12

I have both the 135L and the 70-200 f2.8L IS II. Unless you take a lot of portraits where you need the better out of focus blur or photograph indoor/poorly lit sports where you need that extra stop of speed to stop motion, the answer is no.


Bill
Regardless of the genre or medium, I just like capturing beauty and recording memories
billppw350z.smugmug.co​m/ (external link)
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jimewall
Goldmember
1,871 posts
Likes: 11
Joined May 2008
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
     
Aug 26, 2012 09:17 |  #13

billppw350z wrote in post #14908176 (external link)
I have both the 135L and the 70-200 f2.8L IS II. Unless you take a lot of portraits where you need the better out of focus blur or photograph indoor/poorly lit sports where you need that extra stop of speed to stop motion, the answer is no.

Wouldn't one or both of those reasons pretty much be the main reason/s for getting the 135L? In which case the answer would be yes!

For the record though, I don't have the MKII.


Thanks for Reading & Good Luck - Jim
GEAR

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
billppw350z
Member
Avatar
210 posts
Joined Apr 2006
Location: Carson City
     
Aug 26, 2012 09:56 |  #14

billppw350z wrote in post #14908176 (external link)
I have both the 135L and the 70-200 f2.8L IS II. Unless you take a lot of portraits where you need the better out of focus blur or photograph indoor/poorly lit sports where you need that extra stop of speed to stop motion, the answer is no.


jimewall wrote in post #14908192 (external link)
Wouldn't one or both of those reasons pretty much be the main reason/s for getting the 135L? In which case the answer would be yes!

For the record though, I don't have the MKII.

Unless I said “unless” instead of “if;” the answer is yes. ;)


Bill
Regardless of the genre or medium, I just like capturing beauty and recording memories
billppw350z.smugmug.co​m/ (external link)
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jimewall
Goldmember
1,871 posts
Likes: 11
Joined May 2008
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
     
Aug 26, 2012 10:12 |  #15

billppw350z wrote in post #14908336 (external link)
Unless I said “unless” instead of “if;” the answer is yes. ;)

:lol:


Thanks for Reading & Good Luck - Jim
GEAR

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

3,438 views & 0 likes for this thread
If I have the 70-200 MKII is the 135L worth it?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Anas Cherur
1063 guests, 353 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.